Mark an action as executed

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral rule that this records an event that already occurred rather than scheduling one, but is silent on idempotency, whether the action can be re-marked, and any required auth or evidence preconditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action ('Record that the action really happened'), adds the endpoint for lookup, then one emphatic caution sentence. No filler, though the endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and modest annotations, the description covers the core intent and a key precondition. It leaves open what the call returns, whether marking is idempotent/repeatable, and how expectedSignalAt interacts with the recorded execution, which an agent invoking this state-changing endpoint would want.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the schema itself carries the notable constraint ('at most 5 minutes in the future') and the ISO 8601 format for expectedSignalAt. The description only implies that 'id' is the action identifier via the endpoint path and adds no meaning to executedAt or expectedSignalAt, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor regresses below baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('record that the action really happened') and pins it to the endpoint POST /actions/{id}/execute, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as forbiz_add_evidence, forbiz_record_signal, or forbiz_close, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a strong precondition ('Only when it did: never mark as executed without evidence that the act occurred'), which tells the agent the required state before calling. However, it never routes to alternatives (add_evidence, check_signal, close_without_signal) or says what to do when evidence is absent, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.